Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 519 (UTT)

Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Sunil Talwar

2009-10-21

P.D.SHENOY, S.K.NAIK

body2009
ORDER Dr. P.O. Shenoy, Presiding Member : Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition is filed with delay of 236 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The main reason for the delay has been explained in paras 3 and 4 of this application which read as below : 3. The applicant humbly submits that the original record of the District Forum could not be located in spite of due diligence and best of efforts made and it was not available with the Advocate at Amritsar and with great difficulty and 'considerable effort, the applicant was able to obtain copy of the complaint as well as the written statement from the Advocate at Chandigarh, which has resulted in delay in filing the instant petition. 4. The delay is also attributable to the fact that after the above aforesaid documents were obtained, necessary sanction was to be obtained from the competent authority upon legal advice to file the instant revision petition and the Petitioner being a Public Statutory Body has to follow the Rules and some times a bona fide delay occurs owing to procedures involved. 2. An effort has been made to show• that to some extent the delay is due to the advocates who have handled the case located at Amritstar and Chandigarh. No affidavits of these two advocates have been filed to show that there was some lapse on their part and if there was some lapse on their part, why the Petitioner Corporation has not taken any action against these advocates. Further it is mentioned that Petitioner being a Public Statutory• Body has to follow rules and some times a bona fide delay occurs owing to procedures involved. It is not denied that the Petitioner is a Public Statutory Body but it is an independent Autonomous Corporation and it can take decisions at Corporation level itself. Further the Petitioner has left the column for number of days delay in filing these the revision petitions blank. This means that the Petitioner has not taken care to calculate the delay. The Registry has calculated the delay to be 236 days which is not disputed. 3. Further the Petitioner has left the column for number of days delay in filing these the revision petitions blank. This means that the Petitioner has not taken care to calculate the delay. The Registry has calculated the delay to be 236 days which is not disputed. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793=2009 (SC-2)-GJX -0414 SC, has held as under : "Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly cast a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be that the complainant !1ad sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. The section debars any for a set up under Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by time. Therefore, the claim of the respondent on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, was clearly barred by limitation as the two years period prescribed by Section 24A of the Act had expired much before the complaint was admitted by the State Commission. This finding is sufficient for allowing the appeal. On its plain averments, the complaint is barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such but curiously this aspect was not examined by any of the Consumer Fora although specific plea to this effect was taken by the Bank. Since the complaint is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on that count, it would be unnecessary to examine the other grounds of challenge." 4. According to Regulation No. 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the revision petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the case may be. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) squarely applicable to the case under consideration. According to Regulation No. 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the revision petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the case may be. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) squarely applicable to the case under consideration. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 5. Further, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that his main ground for filing this revision petition is that the Petitioner wants to impose penalty on the Complainant for delay in paying the instalments. This issue has been discussed by the State Commission in para -14 of its order which is quoted below: "Learned District Forum has waived the amount of penalty. Since the respondents have not filed appeal, therefore, that part of the order cannot be set aside. Otherwise, the appellants were liable to pay the penalty amount also if they had failed to follow the schedule of payment." 6. The Petitioner has not filed an appeal against the District Forum's order. Therefore, according to us, the order of the District Forum qua the Petitioner had become final. 7. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this revision petition warranting intervention under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.